niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: The answer to that question is; no one will ever know. David Lynch knew he was onto something ethereal, so he prohibited any promotional photos of the baby and forced his SE crew to sign a release saying they could never talk about it. Lynch, himself, has always been elusive at best. All anyone will ever have is speculation, until Lynch decides to spill the beans. I want to add that the idea that the baby was living tissue has 2 main roadblocks; decomposition and Rigor Mortis. It is highly unlikely the baby was actually living tissue, though it may have been modeled on such. I have seen mention that it somewhat resembles a sheep fetus, so that may have been the vision Lynch worked from. Lynch would have needed several such fetuses for multiple days of filming, which just doesn't seem plausable.  <sep>  Q: What is the Eraserhead baby? A: The answer to that question is; no one will ever know  Q: Where was the baby born? A: It is highly unlikely the baby was actually living tissue  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How was the baby created?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The answer to that question is; no one will ever know. David Lynch knew he was onto something ethereal, so he prohibited any promotional photos of the baby and forced his SE crew to sign a release saying they could never talk about it. Lynch, himself, has always been elusive at best. All anyone will ever have is speculation, until Lynch decides to spill the beans. I want to add that the idea that the baby was living tissue has 2 main roadblocks; decomposition and Rigor Mortis. It is highly unlikely the baby was actually living tissue, though it may have been modeled on such. I have seen mention that it somewhat resembles a sheep fetus, so that may have been the vision Lynch worked from. Lynch would have needed several such fetuses for multiple days of filming, which just doesn't seem plausable.  <sep>  Q: What is the Eraserhead baby? A: The answer to that question is; no one will ever know  Q: Where was the baby born? A: It is highly unlikely the baby was actually living tissue  Q: How was the baby created? A: it somewhat resembles a sheep fetus, so that may have been the vision Lynch worked from  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else could the baby of been ?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The answer to that question is; no one will ever know. David Lynch knew he was onto something ethereal, so he prohibited any promotional photos of the baby and forced his SE crew to sign a release saying they could never talk about it. Lynch, himself, has always been elusive at best. All anyone will ever have is speculation, until Lynch decides to spill the beans. I want to add that the idea that the baby was living tissue has 2 main roadblocks; decomposition and Rigor Mortis. It is highly unlikely the baby was actually living tissue, though it may have been modeled on such. I have seen mention that it somewhat resembles a sheep fetus, so that may have been the vision Lynch worked from. Lynch would have needed several such fetuses for multiple days of filming, which just doesn't seem plausable.  <sep>  Q: What is the Eraserhead baby? A: The answer to that question is; no one will ever know  Q: Where was the baby born? A: It is highly unlikely the baby was actually living tissue  Q: How was the baby created? A: it somewhat resembles a sheep fetus, so that may have been the vision Lynch worked from  Q: What else could the baby of been ? A: All anyone will ever have is speculation, until Lynch decides to spill the beans  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why is the baby such a mystery?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The answer to that question is; no one will ever know. David Lynch knew he was onto something ethereal, so he prohibited any promotional photos of the baby and forced his SE crew to sign a release saying they could never talk about it. Lynch, himself, has always been elusive at best. All anyone will ever have is speculation, until Lynch decides to spill the beans. I want to add that the idea that the baby was living tissue has 2 main roadblocks; decomposition and Rigor Mortis. It is highly unlikely the baby was actually living tissue, though it may have been modeled on such. I have seen mention that it somewhat resembles a sheep fetus, so that may have been the vision Lynch worked from. Lynch would have needed several such fetuses for multiple days of filming, which just doesn't seem plausable.  <sep>  Q: What is the Eraserhead baby? A: The answer to that question is; no one will ever know  Q: Where was the baby born? A: It is highly unlikely the baby was actually living tissue  Q: How was the baby created? A: it somewhat resembles a sheep fetus, so that may have been the vision Lynch worked from  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What was the baby made out of?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The answer to that question is; no one will ever know. David Lynch knew he was onto something ethereal, so he prohibited any promotional photos of the baby and forced his SE crew to sign a release saying they could never talk about it. Lynch, himself, has always been elusive at best. All anyone will ever have is speculation, until Lynch decides to spill the beans. I want to add that the idea that the baby was living tissue has 2 main roadblocks; decomposition and Rigor Mortis. It is highly unlikely the baby was actually living tissue, though it may have been modeled on such. I have seen mention that it somewhat resembles a sheep fetus, so that may have been the vision Lynch worked from. Lynch would have needed several such fetuses for multiple days of filming, which just doesn't seem plausable.  <sep>  Q: What is the Eraserhead baby? A: The answer to that question is; no one will ever know  Q: Where was the baby born? A: It is highly unlikely the baby was actually living tissue  Q: How was the baby created? A: it somewhat resembles a sheep fetus, so that may have been the vision Lynch worked from  Q: What else could the baby of been ? A: All anyone will ever have is speculation, until Lynch decides to spill the beans  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What parts on the baby moved?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I've re-watched the scene and noticed that I missed an important detail. As I mentioned in my question, Tata seems to be emotionless during the short interaction itself, but when it ends we can see her coming back to her sit. After sitting, she gives Murphy (now heading to the toilet) a long, angry look. This clearly proves that she knew who she was talking to and that she sarcastically commented the fact that Murphy spent all his time in Germany in the airport.  <sep>  Q: What did Tata mean when they said "I hope you enjoy germany"
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I've re-watched the scene and noticed that I missed an important detail. As I mentioned in my question, Tata seems to be emotionless during the short interaction itself, but when it ends we can see her coming back to her sit. After sitting, she gives Murphy (now heading to the toilet) a long, angry look. This clearly proves that she knew who she was talking to and that she sarcastically commented the fact that Murphy spent all his time in Germany in the airport.  <sep>  Q: What did Tata mean when they said "I hope you enjoy germany" A: I've re-watched the scene and noticed that I missed an important detail. As I mentioned in my question, Tata seems to be emotionless during the short interaction itself, but when it ends we can  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did she recognize Murphy as a DEA agent?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I've re-watched the scene and noticed that I missed an important detail. As I mentioned in my question, Tata seems to be emotionless during the short interaction itself, but when it ends we can see her coming back to her sit. After sitting, she gives Murphy (now heading to the toilet) a long, angry look. This clearly proves that she knew who she was talking to and that she sarcastically commented the fact that Murphy spent all his time in Germany in the airport.  <sep>  Q: What did Tata mean when they said "I hope you enjoy germany" A: I've re-watched the scene and noticed that I missed an important detail. As I mentioned in my question, Tata seems to be emotionless during the short interaction itself, but when it ends we can  Q: Did she recognize Murphy as a DEA agent? A: After sitting, she gives Murphy (now heading to the toilet) a long, angry look. This clearly proves that she knew who she was talking to and that she sarcastically commented the  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you feel the scene is necessary?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I've re-watched the scene and noticed that I missed an important detail. As I mentioned in my question, Tata seems to be emotionless during the short interaction itself, but when it ends we can see her coming back to her sit. After sitting, she gives Murphy (now heading to the toilet) a long, angry look. This clearly proves that she knew who she was talking to and that she sarcastically commented the fact that Murphy spent all his time in Germany in the airport.  <sep>  Q: What did Tata mean when they said "I hope you enjoy germany" A: I've re-watched the scene and noticed that I missed an important detail. As I mentioned in my question, Tata seems to be emotionless during the short interaction itself, but when it ends we can  Q: Did she recognize Murphy as a DEA agent? A: After sitting, she gives Murphy (now heading to the toilet) a long, angry look. This clearly proves that she knew who she was talking to and that she sarcastically commented the  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did Murphy react?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I imagine that Jacob is referring to some aspect of himself. It could either be his 'past self' - i.e. Jacob before he learned to be a stylish womanizer, perhaps - or it could be the nice and sentimental part of him that still exists in his character. (We know that some part of him like that exists because he falls in love with Cal's daughter.) I imagine it is some combination of the two.  <sep>  Q: Who did Cal Weaver remind Jacob of in Crazy Stupid Love?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I imagine that Jacob is referring to some aspect of himself. It could either be his 'past self' - i.e. Jacob before he learned to be a stylish womanizer, perhaps - or it could be the nice and sentimental part of him that still exists in his character. (We know that some part of him like that exists because he falls in love with Cal's daughter.) I imagine it is some combination of the two.  <sep>  Q: Who did Cal Weaver remind Jacob of in Crazy Stupid Love? A: I imagine that Jacob is referring to some aspect of himself. It could either be his 'past self  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I am talking about when the first meet...is that what you are referring to?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I imagine that Jacob is referring to some aspect of himself. It could either be his 'past self' - i.e. Jacob before he learned to be a stylish womanizer, perhaps - or it could be the nice and sentimental part of him that still exists in his character. (We know that some part of him like that exists because he falls in love with Cal's daughter.) I imagine it is some combination of the two.  <sep>  Q: Who did Cal Weaver remind Jacob of in Crazy Stupid Love? A: I imagine that Jacob is referring to some aspect of himself. It could either be his 'past self  Q: I am talking about when the first meet...is that what you are referring to? A: e know that some part of him like that exists because he falls in love with Cal's dau  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: No worries, do you know any other details about the movie?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I imagine that Jacob is referring to some aspect of himself. It could either be his 'past self' - i.e. Jacob before he learned to be a stylish womanizer, perhaps - or it could be the nice and sentimental part of him that still exists in his character. (We know that some part of him like that exists because he falls in love with Cal's daughter.) I imagine it is some combination of the two.  <sep>  Q: Who did Cal Weaver remind Jacob of in Crazy Stupid Love? A: I imagine that Jacob is referring to some aspect of himself. It could either be his 'past self  Q: I am talking about when the first meet...is that what you are referring to? A: e know that some part of him like that exists because he falls in love with Cal's dau  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are you sure Cal didn't remind Jacob of his father?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I imagine that Jacob is referring to some aspect of himself. It could either be his 'past self' - i.e. Jacob before he learned to be a stylish womanizer, perhaps - or it could be the nice and sentimental part of him that still exists in his character. (We know that some part of him like that exists because he falls in love with Cal's daughter.) I imagine it is some combination of the two.  <sep>  Q: Who did Cal Weaver remind Jacob of in Crazy Stupid Love? A: I imagine that Jacob is referring to some aspect of himself. It could either be his 'past self  Q: I am talking about when the first meet...is that what you are referring to? A: e know that some part of him like that exists because he falls in love with Cal's dau  Q: No worries, do you know any other details about the movie? A: it could be the nice and sentimental part of him that still exists in his character. (We know that some part of him like that exists because he falls in love with Cal's daughter  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think Cal was happy about that?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The last scene is to clear up who the killer is. In the end Catherine Tramell tries to pick up the ice pick in the sex scene which is her murder tool from the first kill, which signifies that she was the killer from the start. The killer was never caught, but after the death of Beth and the evidence found at her house, it turned out that she is the killer. But she was all innocent, and it's been all Catherine's revenge plan because Beth was her lesbian partner and left her.  <sep>  Q: What does the ending scene in the movie Basic Instinct actually mean?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The last scene is to clear up who the killer is. In the end Catherine Tramell tries to pick up the ice pick in the sex scene which is her murder tool from the first kill, which signifies that she was the killer from the start. The killer was never caught, but after the death of Beth and the evidence found at her house, it turned out that she is the killer. But she was all innocent, and it's been all Catherine's revenge plan because Beth was her lesbian partner and left her.  <sep>  Q: What does the ending scene in the movie Basic Instinct actually mean? A: The last scene is to clear up who the killer is  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who caught the killer?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The last scene is to clear up who the killer is. In the end Catherine Tramell tries to pick up the ice pick in the sex scene which is her murder tool from the first kill, which signifies that she was the killer from the start. The killer was never caught, but after the death of Beth and the evidence found at her house, it turned out that she is the killer. But she was all innocent, and it's been all Catherine's revenge plan because Beth was her lesbian partner and left her.  <sep>  Q: What does the ending scene in the movie Basic Instinct actually mean? A: The last scene is to clear up who the killer is  Q: Who caught the killer? A: The killer was never caught, but after the death of Beth and the evidence found at her house, it turned out that she is the killer  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can you explain the the ending scene?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The last scene is to clear up who the killer is. In the end Catherine Tramell tries to pick up the ice pick in the sex scene which is her murder tool from the first kill, which signifies that she was the killer from the start. The killer was never caught, but after the death of Beth and the evidence found at her house, it turned out that she is the killer. But she was all innocent, and it's been all Catherine's revenge plan because Beth was her lesbian partner and left her.  <sep>  Q: What does the ending scene in the movie Basic Instinct actually mean? A: The last scene is to clear up who the killer is  Q: Who caught the killer? A: The killer was never caught, but after the death of Beth and the evidence found at her house, it turned out that she is the killer  Q: Can you explain the the ending scene? A: In the end Catherine Tramell tries to pick up the ice pick in the sex scene which is her murder tool from the first kill, which signifies that she was the killer from the start  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why a cliffhanger?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The last scene is to clear up who the killer is. In the end Catherine Tramell tries to pick up the ice pick in the sex scene which is her murder tool from the first kill, which signifies that she was the killer from the start. The killer was never caught, but after the death of Beth and the evidence found at her house, it turned out that she is the killer. But she was all innocent, and it's been all Catherine's revenge plan because Beth was her lesbian partner and left her.  <sep>  Q: What does the ending scene in the movie Basic Instinct actually mean? A: The last scene is to clear up who the killer is  Q: Who caught the killer? A: The killer was never caught, but after the death of Beth and the evidence found at her house, it turned out that she is the killer  Q: Can you explain the the ending scene? A: In the end Catherine Tramell tries to pick up the ice pick in the sex scene which is her murder tool from the first kill, which signifies that she was the killer from the start  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So the real killer is not caught after all?
Output: No
CONTEXT: She was a fighter, giving in and commiting suicide was not in her nature. Have a look at her in Aliens, insisting on being taught how to use the grenade launcher, returning the loader to fight the queen etc. The alien moved around the ship and although it was blocking her way out at the moment it would probably move, it was just a matter of her not getting caught. If nothing else she might be able to hold it off with the flame thrower until she got out, there were several options other than just giving up. I am guessing that at that point she was going to turn off the self destruct, get in the pod and blast off and then just broadcast a warning about the ship's contents.  <sep>  Q: Why did Ripley try to deactivate the self-destruct sequence at the end of Alien?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: She was a fighter, giving in and commiting suicide was not in her nature. Have a look at her in Aliens, insisting on being taught how to use the grenade launcher, returning the loader to fight the queen etc. The alien moved around the ship and although it was blocking her way out at the moment it would probably move, it was just a matter of her not getting caught. If nothing else she might be able to hold it off with the flame thrower until she got out, there were several options other than just giving up. I am guessing that at that point she was going to turn off the self destruct, get in the pod and blast off and then just broadcast a warning about the ship's contents.  <sep>  Q: Why did Ripley try to deactivate the self-destruct sequence at the end of Alien? A: I am guessing that at that point she was going to turn off the self destruct, get in the pod and blast off and then just broadcast a warning about the ship's contents  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Wouldn't the best option to just let the ship destruct and detroy the alien?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: She was a fighter, giving in and commiting suicide was not in her nature. Have a look at her in Aliens, insisting on being taught how to use the grenade launcher, returning the loader to fight the queen etc. The alien moved around the ship and although it was blocking her way out at the moment it would probably move, it was just a matter of her not getting caught. If nothing else she might be able to hold it off with the flame thrower until she got out, there were several options other than just giving up. I am guessing that at that point she was going to turn off the self destruct, get in the pod and blast off and then just broadcast a warning about the ship's contents.  <sep>  Q: Why did Ripley try to deactivate the self-destruct sequence at the end of Alien? A: I am guessing that at that point she was going to turn off the self destruct, get in the pod and blast off and then just broadcast a warning about the ship's contents  Q: Wouldn't the best option to just let the ship destruct and detroy the alien? A: The alien moved around the ship and although it was blocking her way out at the moment it would probably move, it was just a matter of her not getting caught  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Okay, is there anything else you can help me understand about the movie?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: She was a fighter, giving in and commiting suicide was not in her nature. Have a look at her in Aliens, insisting on being taught how to use the grenade launcher, returning the loader to fight the queen etc. The alien moved around the ship and although it was blocking her way out at the moment it would probably move, it was just a matter of her not getting caught. If nothing else she might be able to hold it off with the flame thrower until she got out, there were several options other than just giving up. I am guessing that at that point she was going to turn off the self destruct, get in the pod and blast off and then just broadcast a warning about the ship's contents.  <sep>  Q: Why did Ripley try to deactivate the self-destruct sequence at the end of Alien? A: I am guessing that at that point she was going to turn off the self destruct, get in the pod and blast off and then just broadcast a warning about the ship's contents  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why would she want to do that though if he was dead anyway?
Output: No
CONTEXT: She was a fighter, giving in and commiting suicide was not in her nature. Have a look at her in Aliens, insisting on being taught how to use the grenade launcher, returning the loader to fight the queen etc. The alien moved around the ship and although it was blocking her way out at the moment it would probably move, it was just a matter of her not getting caught. If nothing else she might be able to hold it off with the flame thrower until she got out, there were several options other than just giving up. I am guessing that at that point she was going to turn off the self destruct, get in the pod and blast off and then just broadcast a warning about the ship's contents.  <sep>  Q: Why did Ripley try to deactivate the self-destruct sequence at the end of Alien? A: I am guessing that at that point she was going to turn off the self destruct, get in the pod and blast off and then just broadcast a warning about the ship's contents  Q: Wouldn't the best option to just let the ship destruct and detroy the alien? A: The alien moved around the ship and although it was blocking her way out at the moment it would probably move, it was just a matter of her not getting caught  Q: Okay, is there anything else you can help me understand about the movie? A: She was a fighter, giving in and commiting suicide was not in her nature  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Okay, so that explains why should would deactivate the self destruct sequence.
Output: No
CONTEXT: Because it provides a point of empathy and connection to the victims for the audience If we get to know them, even a little, before they become victims, it adds to the tragedy of the story. These are ordinary people, just going about their day, each, in the examples you gave, with reasons to celebrate or just be happy with their lives. Without that connection to the audience, they just become, if you will, just random victims...and the impact of the event would be lessened. Also, remember these are real people being portrayed and we do see their final stories at the end of the movie...another point of connection.  <sep>  Q: What is the significance of showing victims even before the attacks?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Because it provides a point of empathy and connection to the victims for the audience If we get to know them, even a little, before they become victims, it adds to the tragedy of the story. These are ordinary people, just going about their day, each, in the examples you gave, with reasons to celebrate or just be happy with their lives. Without that connection to the audience, they just become, if you will, just random victims...and the impact of the event would be lessened. Also, remember these are real people being portrayed and we do see their final stories at the end of the movie...another point of connection.  <sep>  Q: What is the significance of showing victims even before the attacks? A: Because it provides a point of empathy and connection to the victims for the audience  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happens after the attacks?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Because it provides a point of empathy and connection to the victims for the audience If we get to know them, even a little, before they become victims, it adds to the tragedy of the story. These are ordinary people, just going about their day, each, in the examples you gave, with reasons to celebrate or just be happy with their lives. Without that connection to the audience, they just become, if you will, just random victims...and the impact of the event would be lessened. Also, remember these are real people being portrayed and we do see their final stories at the end of the movie...another point of connection.  <sep>  Q: What is the significance of showing victims even before the attacks? A: Because it provides a point of empathy and connection to the victims for the audience  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What movies does this occur in?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Because it provides a point of empathy and connection to the victims for the audience If we get to know them, even a little, before they become victims, it adds to the tragedy of the story. These are ordinary people, just going about their day, each, in the examples you gave, with reasons to celebrate or just be happy with their lives. Without that connection to the audience, they just become, if you will, just random victims...and the impact of the event would be lessened. Also, remember these are real people being portrayed and we do see their final stories at the end of the movie...another point of connection.  <sep>  Q: What is the significance of showing victims even before the attacks? A: Because it provides a point of empathy and connection to the victims for the audience  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happens to the man's vehicle?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Because it provides a point of empathy and connection to the victims for the audience If we get to know them, even a little, before they become victims, it adds to the tragedy of the story. These are ordinary people, just going about their day, each, in the examples you gave, with reasons to celebrate or just be happy with their lives. Without that connection to the audience, they just become, if you will, just random victims...and the impact of the event would be lessened. Also, remember these are real people being portrayed and we do see their final stories at the end of the movie...another point of connection.  <sep>  Q: What is the significance of showing victims even before the attacks? A: Because it provides a point of empathy and connection to the victims for the audience  Q: What happens after the attacks? A: we do see their final stories at the end of the movie  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who are the main actors?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Neo was killing two birds with one stone by going to the Machine City. First, he needed to parley with Deus Ex Machina for peace. Secondly, he knew that by being directly connected to the mainframe, he could ensure that Smith would be destroyed no matter what. As it happened, Smith proved to be unbeatable, so Neo allowed Smith to absorb him, which directly connected Smith to the mainframe, allowing Deus Ex Machina to delete the Smith virus. If Neo had simply been beaten to a pulp and killed, Deus Ex Machina would have ordered the sentries to finish off Zion. However, as Neo ensured that Smith was given access to by Deus Ex Machina, their agreement was fulfilled.  <sep>  Q: End of The Matrix Revolutions
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Neo was killing two birds with one stone by going to the Machine City. First, he needed to parley with Deus Ex Machina for peace. Secondly, he knew that by being directly connected to the mainframe, he could ensure that Smith would be destroyed no matter what. As it happened, Smith proved to be unbeatable, so Neo allowed Smith to absorb him, which directly connected Smith to the mainframe, allowing Deus Ex Machina to delete the Smith virus. If Neo had simply been beaten to a pulp and killed, Deus Ex Machina would have ordered the sentries to finish off Zion. However, as Neo ensured that Smith was given access to by Deus Ex Machina, their agreement was fulfilled.  <sep>  Q: End of The Matrix Revolutions A: to by D  Q: Why is Neo connected to all the machines in the Matrix? A: he needed to parley with Deus Ex Machina for peace. Secondly, he knew that by being directly connected to the mainframe, he could ensure that Smith would be destroyed no matter what  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why does Neo want to destroy Smith?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Neo was killing two birds with one stone by going to the Machine City. First, he needed to parley with Deus Ex Machina for peace. Secondly, he knew that by being directly connected to the mainframe, he could ensure that Smith would be destroyed no matter what. As it happened, Smith proved to be unbeatable, so Neo allowed Smith to absorb him, which directly connected Smith to the mainframe, allowing Deus Ex Machina to delete the Smith virus. If Neo had simply been beaten to a pulp and killed, Deus Ex Machina would have ordered the sentries to finish off Zion. However, as Neo ensured that Smith was given access to by Deus Ex Machina, their agreement was fulfilled.  <sep>  Q: End of The Matrix Revolutions A: to by D  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why was Neo blind?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Neo was killing two birds with one stone by going to the Machine City. First, he needed to parley with Deus Ex Machina for peace. Secondly, he knew that by being directly connected to the mainframe, he could ensure that Smith would be destroyed no matter what. As it happened, Smith proved to be unbeatable, so Neo allowed Smith to absorb him, which directly connected Smith to the mainframe, allowing Deus Ex Machina to delete the Smith virus. If Neo had simply been beaten to a pulp and killed, Deus Ex Machina would have ordered the sentries to finish off Zion. However, as Neo ensured that Smith was given access to by Deus Ex Machina, their agreement was fulfilled.  <sep>  Q: End of The Matrix Revolutions A: to by D  Q: Why is Neo connected to all the machines in the Matrix? A: he needed to parley with Deus Ex Machina for peace. Secondly, he knew that by being directly connected to the mainframe, he could ensure that Smith would be destroyed no matter what  Q: Why does Neo want to destroy Smith? A: Smith proved to be unbeatable, so Neo allowed Smith to absorb him, which directly connected Smith to the mainframe, allowing Deus Ex Machina to delete the Smith virus  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Did Neo destroy the Matrix?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Neo was killing two birds with one stone by going to the Machine City. First, he needed to parley with Deus Ex Machina for peace. Secondly, he knew that by being directly connected to the mainframe, he could ensure that Smith would be destroyed no matter what. As it happened, Smith proved to be unbeatable, so Neo allowed Smith to absorb him, which directly connected Smith to the mainframe, allowing Deus Ex Machina to delete the Smith virus. If Neo had simply been beaten to a pulp and killed, Deus Ex Machina would have ordered the sentries to finish off Zion. However, as Neo ensured that Smith was given access to by Deus Ex Machina, their agreement was fulfilled.  <sep>  Q: End of The Matrix Revolutions A: to by D  Q: Why is Neo connected to all the machines in the Matrix? A: he needed to parley with Deus Ex Machina for peace. Secondly, he knew that by being directly connected to the mainframe, he could ensure that Smith would be destroyed no matter what  Q: Why does Neo want to destroy Smith? A: Smith proved to be unbeatable, so Neo allowed Smith to absorb him, which directly connected Smith to the mainframe, allowing Deus Ex Machina to delete the Smith virus  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is the Matrix alive?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Jack is simply a common nickname for John -- the most famous example being President Kennedy, who was called Jack from birth by friends and family. Ryan is Irish Catholic, as seen in the Patriot Games movie and various elements of his biography in the books. We can presume that his parents wanted to call him Jack but, being Catholic, baptized him with the name of a saint.  <sep>  Q: Where did John Ryan pick up the nickname "Jack"?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Jack is simply a common nickname for John -- the most famous example being President Kennedy, who was called Jack from birth by friends and family. Ryan is Irish Catholic, as seen in the Patriot Games movie and various elements of his biography in the books. We can presume that his parents wanted to call him Jack but, being Catholic, baptized him with the name of a saint.  <sep>  Q: Where did John Ryan pick up the nickname "Jack"? A: Jack is simply a common nickname for John  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Where did the name Ryan come from?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Jack is simply a common nickname for John -- the most famous example being President Kennedy, who was called Jack from birth by friends and family. Ryan is Irish Catholic, as seen in the Patriot Games movie and various elements of his biography in the books. We can presume that his parents wanted to call him Jack but, being Catholic, baptized him with the name of a saint.  <sep>  Q: Where did John Ryan pick up the nickname "Jack"? A: Jack is simply a common nickname for John  Q: Where did the name Ryan come from? A: Ryan is Irish Catholic  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does he go by any other names?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Jack is simply a common nickname for John -- the most famous example being President Kennedy, who was called Jack from birth by friends and family. Ryan is Irish Catholic, as seen in the Patriot Games movie and various elements of his biography in the books. We can presume that his parents wanted to call him Jack but, being Catholic, baptized him with the name of a saint.  <sep>  Q: Where did John Ryan pick up the nickname "Jack"? A: Jack is simply a common nickname for John  Q: Where did the name Ryan come from? A: Ryan is Irish Catholic  Q: Does he go by any other names? A: We can presume that his parents wanted to call him Jack but, being Catholic, baptized him with the name of a saint  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about his name?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Jack is simply a common nickname for John -- the most famous example being President Kennedy, who was called Jack from birth by friends and family. Ryan is Irish Catholic, as seen in the Patriot Games movie and various elements of his biography in the books. We can presume that his parents wanted to call him Jack but, being Catholic, baptized him with the name of a saint.  <sep>  Q: Where did John Ryan pick up the nickname "Jack"? A: Jack is simply a common nickname for John  Q: Where did the name Ryan come from? A: Ryan is Irish Catholic  Q: Does he go by any other names? A: We can presume that his parents wanted to call him Jack but, being Catholic, baptized him with the name of a saint  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does he go by the same name in the books and movie?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Jack is simply a common nickname for John -- the most famous example being President Kennedy, who was called Jack from birth by friends and family. Ryan is Irish Catholic, as seen in the Patriot Games movie and various elements of his biography in the books. We can presume that his parents wanted to call him Jack but, being Catholic, baptized him with the name of a saint.  <sep>  Q: Where did John Ryan pick up the nickname "Jack"? A: Jack is simply a common nickname for John  Q: Where did the name Ryan come from? A: Ryan is Irish Catholic  Q: Does he go by any other names? A: We can presume that his parents wanted to call him Jack but, being Catholic, baptized him with the name of a saint  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does he ever go by John in the movie or book?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The doctors believed his lycanthropy to be a mental delusion or disease where he just thought he was a wolf or werewolf. It is a real psychological disorder. They are using barbaric but societally acceptable at the time psychiatric methods to try to cure those delusions. But he's a real werewolf and things like that don't work on real werewolves. Evidently. The doctors did not think he could actually change into a wolf. They thought he was just Cray Cray.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the treatment for Lycanthropy work?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The doctors believed his lycanthropy to be a mental delusion or disease where he just thought he was a wolf or werewolf. It is a real psychological disorder. They are using barbaric but societally acceptable at the time psychiatric methods to try to cure those delusions. But he's a real werewolf and things like that don't work on real werewolves. Evidently. The doctors did not think he could actually change into a wolf. They thought he was just Cray Cray.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the treatment for Lycanthropy work? A: But he's a real werewolf and things like that don't work on real werewolves  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who played the role of Larry Talbot?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The doctors believed his lycanthropy to be a mental delusion or disease where he just thought he was a wolf or werewolf. It is a real psychological disorder. They are using barbaric but societally acceptable at the time psychiatric methods to try to cure those delusions. But he's a real werewolf and things like that don't work on real werewolves. Evidently. The doctors did not think he could actually change into a wolf. They thought he was just Cray Cray.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the treatment for Lycanthropy work? A: But he's a real werewolf and things like that don't work on real werewolves  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why did he become a werewolf?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Basically, yes. But not as a Targaryen. As a rewards for his services. It is customary at the end of a war to do the Title Dance. Enemies are stripped from title, land and castles (if let alive at all), while allies and important persons (Sir Bronn of the Blackwater for example) are given titles, land and castle that are currently available, either because the family died in war (Tarly house for example, in fact the all reach is mentioned in the show to be available, and of course, Harrenhal the hot potato), or because it was stripped from enemies. So he can get any Castle he wants as long as he asks nicely.  <sep>  Q: Is Jon the ruler of Dragonstone?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Basically, yes. But not as a Targaryen. As a rewards for his services. It is customary at the end of a war to do the Title Dance. Enemies are stripped from title, land and castles (if let alive at all), while allies and important persons (Sir Bronn of the Blackwater for example) are given titles, land and castle that are currently available, either because the family died in war (Tarly house for example, in fact the all reach is mentioned in the show to be available, and of course, Harrenhal the hot potato), or because it was stripped from enemies. So he can get any Castle he wants as long as he asks nicely.  <sep>  Q: Is Jon the ruler of Dragonstone? A: Basically, yes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What are his plans now?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Basically, yes. But not as a Targaryen. As a rewards for his services. It is customary at the end of a war to do the Title Dance. Enemies are stripped from title, land and castles (if let alive at all), while allies and important persons (Sir Bronn of the Blackwater for example) are given titles, land and castle that are currently available, either because the family died in war (Tarly house for example, in fact the all reach is mentioned in the show to be available, and of course, Harrenhal the hot potato), or because it was stripped from enemies. So he can get any Castle he wants as long as he asks nicely.  <sep>  Q: Is Jon the ruler of Dragonstone? A: Basically, yes  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it because of his heritage?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Basically, yes. But not as a Targaryen. As a rewards for his services. It is customary at the end of a war to do the Title Dance. Enemies are stripped from title, land and castles (if let alive at all), while allies and important persons (Sir Bronn of the Blackwater for example) are given titles, land and castle that are currently available, either because the family died in war (Tarly house for example, in fact the all reach is mentioned in the show to be available, and of course, Harrenhal the hot potato), or because it was stripped from enemies. So he can get any Castle he wants as long as he asks nicely.  <sep>  Q: Is Jon the ruler of Dragonstone? A: Basically, yes  Q: What are his plans now? A: It is customary at the end of a war to do the Title Dance  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Will he be in charge of the dance?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I'm convinced it was left vague on purpose. A recurring theme in the show is to hint at potential plot points in the future, while leaving the possibility open that it is just ignored. Dan Harmon has stated before that they don't really plan out the future details well in advance. They leave multiple different options open until the time comes to use a plot point. Then it becomes cannon. They want us to question if Beth is real or a clone going forward. That said, if Beth is a clone, I don't think we will find out for sure until there is a good reason to reveal that information. They now have another back-pocket dues ex machina where "real" Beth can always come out of nowhere and change any situation. Rick also makes it pretty clear that the audience wont really be able to tell either. He says "Either way, you chill the f** out" (or something like that); meaning we can't definitively say Beth's new behaviour is from cloning or just a new outlook. The ambiguity is essentially confirmed to be on purpose around 1:30 in this video from the writers/creators: (it's an adultswim link, might be region locked, I'm not sure, let me know if if it is). Also in Season 3 episode 10 Beth has to question this for herself, and it leads to the secondary plot in the episode.  <sep>  Q: What can you tell me about Rick and Morty?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I'm convinced it was left vague on purpose. A recurring theme in the show is to hint at potential plot points in the future, while leaving the possibility open that it is just ignored. Dan Harmon has stated before that they don't really plan out the future details well in advance. They leave multiple different options open until the time comes to use a plot point. Then it becomes cannon. They want us to question if Beth is real or a clone going forward. That said, if Beth is a clone, I don't think we will find out for sure until there is a good reason to reveal that information. They now have another back-pocket dues ex machina where "real" Beth can always come out of nowhere and change any situation. Rick also makes it pretty clear that the audience wont really be able to tell either. He says "Either way, you chill the f** out" (or something like that); meaning we can't definitively say Beth's new behaviour is from cloning or just a new outlook. The ambiguity is essentially confirmed to be on purpose around 1:30 in this video from the writers/creators: (it's an adultswim link, might be region locked, I'm not sure, let me know if if it is). Also in Season 3 episode 10 Beth has to question this for herself, and it leads to the secondary plot in the episode.  <sep>  Q: What can you tell me about Rick and Morty? A: Rick also makes it pretty clear that the audience wont really be able to tell either  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is there anything else you can tell me?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I'm convinced it was left vague on purpose. A recurring theme in the show is to hint at potential plot points in the future, while leaving the possibility open that it is just ignored. Dan Harmon has stated before that they don't really plan out the future details well in advance. They leave multiple different options open until the time comes to use a plot point. Then it becomes cannon. They want us to question if Beth is real or a clone going forward. That said, if Beth is a clone, I don't think we will find out for sure until there is a good reason to reveal that information. They now have another back-pocket dues ex machina where "real" Beth can always come out of nowhere and change any situation. Rick also makes it pretty clear that the audience wont really be able to tell either. He says "Either way, you chill the f** out" (or something like that); meaning we can't definitively say Beth's new behaviour is from cloning or just a new outlook. The ambiguity is essentially confirmed to be on purpose around 1:30 in this video from the writers/creators: (it's an adultswim link, might be region locked, I'm not sure, let me know if if it is). Also in Season 3 episode 10 Beth has to question this for herself, and it leads to the secondary plot in the episode.  <sep>  Q: Does Beth leave or stay with the family?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The movie is an adaptation of Peter Shaffer's play of the same name, which suffers from the same criticism of historical accuracy. I can't find any references to hand, but I imagine that Shaffer was using the historical setting to stage a story of artistic genius and professional rivalry that makes such a good story, and that accuracy was somewhat secondary. It is true that Salieri and Mozart were professional rivals, and that Mozart fairly obviously was the more successful - but it is also clear that their rivalry did not descend into hatred nor that Salieri had any part in Mozart's death, despite rumors. On a positive front the movie makes it very clear that Salieri admires and respects Mozart's abilities, and you could argue that the movie is less about professional rivalry, than about Salieri's argument with God about his somewhat less stellar skills.  <sep>  Q: Why is the Salieri-Mozart relationship projected falsely in the movie Amadeus?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The movie is an adaptation of Peter Shaffer's play of the same name, which suffers from the same criticism of historical accuracy. I can't find any references to hand, but I imagine that Shaffer was using the historical setting to stage a story of artistic genius and professional rivalry that makes such a good story, and that accuracy was somewhat secondary. It is true that Salieri and Mozart were professional rivals, and that Mozart fairly obviously was the more successful - but it is also clear that their rivalry did not descend into hatred nor that Salieri had any part in Mozart's death, despite rumors. On a positive front the movie makes it very clear that Salieri admires and respects Mozart's abilities, and you could argue that the movie is less about professional rivalry, than about Salieri's argument with God about his somewhat less stellar skills.  <sep>  Q: Why is the Salieri-Mozart relationship projected falsely in the movie Amadeus? A: you could argue that the movie is less about professional rivalry, than about Salieri's argument with God about his somewhat less stellar skills  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So, are you saying it wasn't based on factual events?
Output: Yes